CVE-2012-2307
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Addressbook module for Drupal 6.x-4.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceCSRF vulnerability in the Drupal Addressbook module (6.x-4.2 and earlier) allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of logged-in users by tricking them into submitting malicious requests to the application.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 6.x-4.2= 5.x-3.3= 5.x-3.5= 6.x-3.4= 6.x-3.5= 6.x-3.6= 6.x-3.7= 6.x-4.0= 6.x-4.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check if Addressbook module is installedLook for the addressbook folder in Drupal's modules directory (sites/all/modules/ or sites/all/modules/contrib/) or check via Drupal's module administration pageAffected if The Addressbook module folder exists in the Drupal modules directory
-
Determine installed Addressbook module versionCheck the addressbook.info file within the module folder for the version string, or look at the .info file's 'version' or 'core' fieldsAffected if Version is 6.x-4.2 or earlier, or matches any of these specific versions: 5.x-3.3, 5.x-3.5, 6.x-3.4, 6.x-3.5, 6.x-3.6, 6.x-3.7, 6.x-4.0, 6.x-4.1
-
Verify module is enabledCheck Drupal's module administration interface or query the system table in the database for the addressbook module statusAffected if The module is both installed AND enabled on the site
-
Inspect forms for CSRF token presenceView page source of any Addressbook forms (e.g., address entry forms, contact forms) and check if form elements include a 'form_token' or similar CSRF token fieldAffected if Forms lack a form_token field or CSRF protection mechanism
-
Check Drupal form token verification is enabledReview Drupal's form verification settings in admin settings or check if forms are using Drupal's built-in form API which includes token verification by defaultAffected if Custom forms do not invoke Drupal's form_token validation
User is affected if the Addressbook module is installed, enabled, and runs a version within the affected ranges, particularly if the forms lack proper CSRF token protection.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens on all forms within the Addressbook module and validate these tokens on form submission; additionally, enable Drupal's built-in form token verification and consider adding referer header validation as a secondary defense.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2307 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2012-2307 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data